Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D46200CA4 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:21:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 95A02160BE2; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:21:21 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id D728E160BB6 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:21:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 5278 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2017 09:21:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@polygene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@polygene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@polygene.apache.org Received: (qmail 5266 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jun 2017 09:21:19 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:21:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 22B82C6646 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:21:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.98 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bi6GOq65yFsz for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f50.google.com (mail-lf0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 67E695F2AE for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a136so3180728lfa.0 for ; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 02:21:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=eEmLa4KPYZqZo8pxRGIyJkliS+FlAHHjfFqcYHbzfVk=; b=JLKnHE5fEVovsVtxej5HHYEoCytuTDDnXOFZAAMJlcNkaXxQZyUasnnsxPVYpNP/ly 9fcYUv00wEl9REgd9t8L37dXHNUnC7u1hy04A8LhwQcyd5ZKrCsXYuj+Z5grgzXCsrKz e3afZ5jpRBz4geCq5CbVIilqA1HIVojs4VWDY9M1pyN2+/2ammrROcmpFX8KlEwbT8SN ZlPze4ktjCS5Hi7xALOkEkNMijdcobKQl4Vy6oxGC60TrYvcNn39KFnFFVziU/Dfj0Hh xRFtvnIMML+X0S4+HUHC2o75KUCIRTtPjQRPeDBBSIrCp37nXwR3aY+yKBJoLpzd3Z54 FbZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=eEmLa4KPYZqZo8pxRGIyJkliS+FlAHHjfFqcYHbzfVk=; b=d1aCWBQiw3vKKeTYJEmYDSgul5AHUtMVwZI9iYWbHIcbYfm6H11B3avtNMWI+xuzlP 1LhCrY3i4IZr0o8lgJF7M43VRDjqh+mXkqhNA9OmpVKsuAMBpJvOLFjZ7fPPrvA+bEAl IBqN4yIpgw8lXVShU+EFBuE/My5MZay9LhgvDzxQoL6OlDF7DH6OJi6sByJI2d0d/ixW A6W5SFBd0XFL339hpzY5Jc0zeCsGjopHS/0XGmx09SLmZQEl4R4G2nPNZzh5BDbYxDhA rwkYXqkOHq73Y/0G3XjJ2mW660FudEQF+P+ousXDBVg4HCTQGt0u4P7JOH8jqNo1tKma yV0w== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDLkpz4vsVYS/NUmMPvjdrYvSANpO7R3UpyjhlvtHVOCUqNbjfZ 6Se3fDwKWRtR8HqGipNOwyPF3oNvPw== X-Received: by 10.25.234.84 with SMTP id i81mr6471631lfh.42.1496827270517; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 02:21:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: hedhman@gmail.com Received: by 10.46.83.18 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 02:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.46.83.18 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 02:21:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Niclas Hedhman Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:21:09 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: kyWEPp9RtvdgCp4mM1RVEPFk8AQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: Non-Accessible Public Method?? To: dev@polygene.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0dc236bfd76605515b4177" archived-at: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:21:21 -0000 --94eb2c0dc236bfd76605515b4177 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Except!!!! It is not that... It is something else... On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Oh... some more; > > PropertyMapper > CompositeAssemblyImpl > > > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >> I find it in the following places (note to myself where to fix it later); >> >> TransientClassLoader ( 2 places ) >> FragmentClassLoader ( 2 places ) >> ConstructorsModel (2 places) >> CompositeModel >> CompositeMethodModel >> >> I also suspect that the "check for public" in AccessibleObjects helper >> should just not be done. >> >> >> Since this is happening during startup, I suspect that you had other >> reason than performance to make this change. Would like to hear about it. >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Niclas Hedhman >> wrote: >> >>> >>> So Paul, in commit 40d8d6de0c4c459d09ffad31110b3057d175536a you removed >>> setAccessible(true) in CompositeMethodModel, on the basis that it is not >>> needed. After all, the method is from an interface and public by default. >>> >>> But that is for some reason not true. >>> >>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1oCChgcqYT7RVhvMG1oaHBJQXc >>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1oCChgcqYT7YlRDZnRXc2VBcnc >>> >>> >>> and for completeness >>> >>> public interface SqlTable >>> { >>> BaseEntity fetchBaseEntity( EntityReference reference, ModuleDescriptor module ); >>> >>> >>> >>> So, I have no idea why a public interface method is not "accessible", >>> perhaps it is something new, or something leaking from Java 9. >>> >>> I am also very concerned that our tests don't catch this. I will try to >>> reproduce this for test setting prior to adding the "set accessible" to the >>> above place. Additionally, were there any other locations where this was >>> changed? >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Niclas Hedhman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Uhhh.... I have just found this particularly interesting situation; >>>> >>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1oCChgcqYT7a2N5RktQNWlSQnM/view >>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1oCChgcqYT7aEJSeW9NdFUwaWM >>>> >>>> >>>> The method has "public" modifiers (it is public in the code), but the >>>> "isAccessible()" is reporting false. >>>> >>>> Anybody has any ideas on how this is possible? Is there anywhere we >>>> change "accessible" to false? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> -- >>>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer >>>> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer >>> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer >> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java >> > > > > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java --94eb2c0dc236bfd76605515b4177--